Thanks for the resolution of A&G (yes, of course) and the link. Effect of enclitics on accentuation is tricky (scholars argue about it), and things are rather more complex than the A&G rules admit (though I see they do acknowledge scholarly dispute over e.g. exinde). When did itaque "and so = "therefore" get separated off from "and so = and in this way"? (Obviously by the time itaque starts being used postpositively.) That will have some bearing on the question - which, to repeat, is an interesting one, but not one to be definitively answered by reference to A&G.

Yes I figured they got it from some ancient grammarian, and ought to have guessed Servius. No doubt the doctrine was true in his time, and perhaps in Vergil's. But how much earlier?, when did itaque split into two? It's a genuine question, which I'm too ignorant to answer. Plus of course Latin accentuation changed from Plautus to classical. (I should add I haven't yet looked up the Servius--but thanks for the reference--nor modern phonological/prosodical treatments. And I'm happy to withdraw "implausible" in the interests of fostering a spirit of communal enquiry rather than confrontation. I'm already catching enough flak on the Greek boards. )

mwh wrote:Yes I figured they got it from some ancient grammarian, and ought to have guessed Servius.

I've read every volume of Keil and could not say as much because reading it once is only a start and there's so much I haven't grasped. Where does that insight come from? You are implying an expertise in Servius. Couldn't another have mentioned that detail? And there is so much Servius doesn't talk about.Omne volumine de Keil lecto, ego tantum clamare non possum quod non satis est semel legisse et multum apud grammaticos antiquos malè capio. Unde oritur talis acuitas? Te peritum Servi esse denotas. Nonnè alius de illo vocabulo tractaverit. Et multa Servius praeterit.

You're perfectly right. I'm no sort of expert on Servius, nor have I read everything in Keil even once (and if I had, I might not admit to it ). I've been known to confuse my Donati, and possibly my Servii (for can we be sure of authorship?). Please strike the sentence.

Fortunately it has no bearing on the question at issue, the historical bifurcation of itaque. That's what I'd be interested in knowing about, and I suspect the ancient Latin grammarians are not going to be of help there. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, reading Keil helps with Laurentius's itaque question because, when you read it you find direct evidence that, at one point, the practice was to accent itaque in two ways. A&G drew attention to this practice. I drew attention to A&G and I drew attention to a source in Keil. There may be other places in Keil where itaque comes up but I can't locate them just now. I recommend reading Keil. Beyond that I know of no other primary evidence on the question. That is the help I can offer. Beyond that is conjecture and sometimes waffle.

Gee. Yes, you answered the original question, in the terms in which it was asked. But you fail to see that the dogma you reported (as if it was gospel truth) entails a more interesting and fundamental question, as I have tried gently to point out:

mwh wrote:When did itaque "and so = "therefore" get separated off from "and so = and in this way"?

That's why I defined the question at issue as the historical bifurcation of itaque. (when -que shed its enclitic status)Without an answer to that there is no hope of settling the question of the historical accent. You have been assiduously avoiding this and have done nothing but harp on Keil. And now you pronounce

adrianus wrote:Ultra, conjecturae et vacua.

That is the most arrogant and (to be frank) stupid statement I have heard for some time. There are scholars who study latin prosody and the history of the latin language. Perhaps you are too busy reading Keil to be aware of them. But it is to them we must turn for instruction and enlightenment on questions such as this.

The discussion between the two of us has clearly gone as far as it can (that is to say, nowhere). I hope others will come on board.

EDIT: I apologize for the exasperated tone of this post.

Last edited by mwh on Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mwh wrote:That is the most arrogant and (to be frank) stupid statement I have heard for some time. There are scholars who study latin prosody and the history of the latin language. Perhaps you are too busy reading Keil to be aware of them. But it is to them we must turn for instruction and enlightenment on questions such as this.

Then name these scholars and the studies we should refer to for instruction and enlightenment on this question.

mwh wrote:That is the most arrogant and (to be frank) stupid statement I have heard for some time. There are scholars who study latin prosody and the history of the latin language. Perhaps you are too busy reading Keil to be aware of them. But it is to them we must turn for instruction and enlightenment on questions such as this.

You are being rude, mvh. I don't know what age you are but that would be no excuse, so control yourself. I am not aware of instruction and enlightment on this question of how to pronounce itaque by any scholar I have read on this topic (which is one of my favourite topics for casual research), other than what has been garnered from the ancient grammarians. If you know of any, share it with us. What I say is that without primary evidence about pronunciation of itaque there is conjecture and there are also people pretending to know more than they do. That is neither a stupid statement nor an arrogant one. If anything, it's a criticism of arrogance.

I also find mwh's post(s) to be rather rude and discourteous. The point he raises is an interesting one but I fail to see how "a spirit of communal enquiry rather than confrontation" can be fostered in such a way.

I apologize for the tone of my last post. The post to which it responded, merely repeating previous posts and peremptorily dismissing everything I had written as "conjecture and sometimes waffle," had brought it home to me that we were effectively stuck at the point where we'd started, and that I had to abandon all hope of meaningful dialogue and communal enquiry - unless others joined the discussion.

Shenoute now rescues us from the impasse by very helpfully linking to two very helpful articles, esp. Tucker's. They amply confirm the main point that I had been trying unsuccessfully to get across, that the "Effect of enclitics on accentuation is tricky (scholars argue about it), and things are rather more complex than the A&G rules admit" (Oct.25 post). They also tempt me to reinstate the "implausible" of my original post. It is folly to fixate on itaque in isolation, just as it is folly to accept statements of late Latin grammarians on matters of pronunciation as definitive (see Tucker's first two pages, to go no further). The primary evidence is the corpus of Latin literature (supplemented by Greek).

There will no doubt be more recent studies, but Latin being only peripheral to my main interests I can't give precise references. Jumping-off points for investigation might be Questa? (early Latin, empiricist), Devine and Stephens? (linguistics orientation)? I have very vague recollection of coming across some note specifically on itaque (whose semantic bifurcation makes it particularly interesting) but I don't remember where or what (perhaps by Otto Skutsch, in his Ennius commentary maybe??).

I'll bow out here, unless I see an opening to make a positive contribution that won't simply be brushed aside.

mwh wrote: The post to which it responded, merely repeating previous posts and peremptorily dismissing everything I had written as "conjecture and sometimes waffle,".

I did not say that (everything you had written was conjecture and waffle), as anyone can read above.Id non dixi, ut omnes supra legere possunt.

mwh wrote:Shenoute now rescues us from the impasse by very helpfully linking to two very helpful articles, esp. Tucker's. They amply confirm the main point that I had been trying unsuccessfully to get across, that the "Effect of enclitics on accentuation is tricky (scholars argue about it), and things are rather more complex than the A&G rules admit" (Oct.25 post)..

I had assumed that, when you were referring to the debate, you had read relevant books and articles. I see that I assumed wrongly.Falsè imaginavi te, qui de controversiâ locutus sis, fontes aptes legisse. Me ineptum.

mwh wrote:They also tempt me to reinstate the "implausible" of my original post.

You judged it implausible because you hadn't read anything on the matter. No one on the pages you now have read who disagrees that enclitics attract the accent, says it's implausible.Sine fontibus aptis legis, rem habuisti incredibile. Nullus auctor in paginis paucis a te nunc lectis citatus, etiam qui a grammaticis antiquis dissentit, ut incredible clamat encliticum attrahere accentum.

mwh wrote:There will no doubt be more recent studies, but Latin being only peripheral to my main interests I can't give precise references. Jumping-off points for investigation might be Questa? (early Latin, empiricist), Devine and Stephens? (linguistics orientation)? I have very vague recollection of coming across some note specifically on itaque (whose semantic bifurcation makes it particularly interesting) but I don't remember where or what (perhaps by Otto Skutsch, in his Ennius commentary maybe??). .

Devine and Stephens doesn't discuss this; Skutch doesn't discuss this. I have dozens of articles and books about Latin pronunciation and about enclitics and pronunciation and there are more I don't have. Many do mention itaque for reasons started above. These are more obvious places to start if you want to read about the debate. Some people love Allen's Vox Latina. Do a search for Latin Accent or Latin Pronunciation or Latin Prosody or Latin Accent and Enclitics, and you will find some of them at least. You should read them. They throw light on Laurentius's question and many acknowledge the conjectural nature of their investigations; none throw light on your question.

Thanks, Godmy. I appreciate that. I'm often making mistakes, I'm not always consistent; sometimes I see my own mistakes afterwards and correct them. Certainly, I would like to improve. I don't wish to mislead people about my level so I lay out my wares for all to see,—plus, I like it and it helps me.

Sum et barbarus et felix, et anglicismus modernus non est sed antiquus et goidelicismus antiquior pro regis titulo. Classicum scribendi modum admiror, unâ cum aliis, praesertim modum Erasmi et serioris aetatis. De hoc, iterum tecum concurro: ineptum "Hobitus Ille" et inepta ista versio in quâ paucas paginas legi, reliquas neglexi.Well, I'm a barbarian and proud of it and I'd say it's not a modern Anglicism but a very old one [‘He’s Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don’t you know what “ther” means?’ ‘Ah, yes, now I do,’ I said quickly; and I hope you do too, because it is all the explanation you are going to get.] and a more ancient celticism for the title of king or head of all clans. I like classical latin but love also Erasmian and modern Latin. I do agree about the silliness of "Hobbitus Ille" as a title (it's not strictly right) and elsewhere in the translation (judging from what little I read of it before disgarding it).